Poll: Why do people hate 3D?

Recommended Videos

Mirroga

New member
Jun 6, 2009
1,119
0
0
If the entire game isn't based or made around the 3D functions, then it really doesn't work. This counts for almost all of the games and movies out there.

I learned this by watching recent movies with annoying 3D added into it and experiencing the 3D movie made in Disney World.
 

floppylobster

New member
Oct 22, 2008
1,528
0
0
Hoplon said:
The only reason it is pushed at all is the 40% bump on ticket prices for minimal extra investment.
Actually one of the big reasons it was pushed was part of an attempt to block piracy. The price hike was initially just to cover the cost of installing the new equipment. But now they know they can get away with it, and now they realize some people love so much they're willing to pay that price every time, they've ended up showing movies in both formats. If 3D had have completely taken off, and everyone only wanted to watch only 3D, then the price would have eventually come back down.
 

Ledan

New member
Apr 15, 2009
798
0
0
Because it doesn't add much. It's not real 3D, as many have said, so after the initial few minutes you ignore it. It doesn't add anything to the movie, and jacks up the cost of the movie.
Holograms would be different, because we wouldnt have to wear glasses and it would be real head tilting 3D.
I don't think this wave of 3D will last because we have had so many failed waves of 3D. This is at least the third wave of 3D, and it isn't any different.
 

Hoplon

Jabbering Fool
Mar 31, 2010
1,839
0
0
floppylobster said:
Hoplon said:
The only reason it is pushed at all is the 40% bump on ticket prices for minimal extra investment.
Actually one of the big reasons it was pushed was part of an attempt to block piracy. The price hike was initially just to cover the cost of installing the new equipment. But now they know they can get away with it, and now they realize some people love so much they're willing to pay that price every time, they've ended up showing movies in both formats. If 3D had have completely taken off, and everyone only wanted to watch only 3D, then the price would have eventually come back down.
Given 3d's 100 year history of repeated failure, they had to know that it never would catch on.

It was an opportunity to create a price hike dressed up as other things.
 

Ranorak

Tamer of the Coffee mug!
Feb 17, 2010
1,946
0
41
Because it doesn't add anything to the movie.
It doesn't enhance the story.
it doesn't enhance the flow
It doesn't enhance the pacing

All it really does it remind you that you're watching a movie.
It totally breaks immersion.
 

babinro

New member
Sep 24, 2010
2,514
0
0
I really don't care:

Which is appropriate because I've yet to experience anything in 3D since it's made a come back.
It's simply an advancement that holds no interest to me.

Similarly:
- I don't buy anything in Blue Ray because I'm happy with DVD's which look great and are much cheaper.
- The Wii U tablet console is another advancement that has yet to garner any personal interest.
 

Baron von Blitztank

New member
May 7, 2010
2,132
0
0
It really doesn't add anything to a movie other than increasing the ticket price. It doesn't add anything to the plot and in some cases it slows the movie down needlessly so that you can gawp at the special effects. The effects themselves aren't even that noticeable. It turns the whole thing into a diorama and is only really noticeable if the film gets slowed to an agonizing crawl just for the obligatory "Marvel as shit flies toward the screen" shot.
 

theravensclaw

New member
Oct 13, 2010
98
0
0
gives me a migraine and i feel queasy. i actually got some anti 3d glasses from thinkgeek and they work when a film is only showing in 3d
 

Vivi22

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,300
0
0
tippy2k2 said:
There are only a handful of movies that get 3D right; that's why I hate 3D movies.

Avatar uses it the way it should be used (to add depth to your shots): I should NEVER notice that your movie is in 3D. If I have noticed the 3D, you have utterly failed as a film maker.
And therein lies the catch with me. If you do 3D right I should never notice it. But if I'm never noticing it, then what the hell is it really adding?

The reality is that I've never seen a movie or game that was improved by 3D. It's never been used, to my knowledge, to make any sort of artistic statement, add to the meaning of a scene or any other kind of artistic use you can think of. It's always simply been there, but not really for any reason other than increasing the ticket price.

There's also the fact that it's not actual 3D, it's merely trying to simulate it, and often does a poor job of it, which is why you can watch movies where the depth of some scenes pops and others where you don't notice it because it was literally done so badly that nothing actually looks three dimensional. Even worse is that a not-insignificant portion of the population can't even see this simulated 3D properly, or literally suffer migraines if they try to put up with it.

But you know what the most damning thing of all is? It's unnecessary. Completely and utterly unnecessary. Our eyes are really good at judging depth in two dimensional images, especially when we can see things like shadows, assume the average height of a person, and see other depth cues like objects getting smaller or larger as they move farther away or closer to the camera. Yeah, there are situations where you can trick the eyes with a two dimensional image, but for the most part they don't have a big impact on film making, or even better, are actually useful for setting up some really cool shots that would be difficult to impossible without being able to play with our perspective.

So yeah, you know what, I hate 3D. It's useless and it costs me more money. I've actively avoided 3D movies and games for the last 2-3 years because of it. Because let's face it, when there's only one movie anyone ever mentions as having done 3D well (Avatar) and the only reason that's the case is because it didn't completely botch the sense of depth and perspective or make everyone who saw it sick, just how useful is it really? How much does it actually add? Because I can't think of an answer to that that doesn't end with it not being useful and adding nothing.

3D can talk to me when we have holodecks. Until then, I'll stick with 2D images thanks.
 

Zeren

New member
Aug 6, 2011
394
0
0
I hate it. I get a massive headache from it. I live in the third dimension. I don't need a movie to try and simulate it. The only thing they manage to simulate is the feeling of someone knocking me around with a hammer for an hour and a half.

EDIT: Since I wear prescription glasses, the glasses they give me are incredibly uncomfortable to try and put on over them. I can't see at all without my glasses, so going to a movie where I have to wear two pairs at the same time is just stupid.
 

Nietz

New member
Dec 1, 2009
358
0
0
I don't hate 3d, it seems to be a nice gimmick that at least my fiancée enjoys. I just can't see it very well. Whenever I watch a 3D movie I pretty much always see things in double, it's like being drunk, but without the added benefits. I checked my eyes recently, and according to the doctors, my eyes are fine, in fact they're great(considering both my parents are pretty much blind without the glasses).
I've had no luck with the 3DS either, that one strains my eyes a bit. It's like sitting in a tunnel full of things that move around too much and makes me a bit sick.
 

SecondPrize

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,436
0
0
I wear glasses, If they made 3d goggles that fit comfortably over my glasses like some skiing goggles I've owned, It would be within the realm of possibility that I'd consider it.
Technical issues aside, I can't see much difference in the way hollywood has approached this compared to the 3d craze the first time. The movies being made in 3d just seem to have it tacked on. There's really no reason for any movie being released in 3d to have done so, It's just a gimmick and, to me, that ain't worth doubling a ticket price.
 
Feb 22, 2009
715
0
0
I think most people who say they dislike 3D actually just think it makes basically no difference at all, and that filmmakers should be focusing on actually making good films before obsessing over how fancy they can make them look with 3D.
 

Bobic

New member
Nov 10, 2009
1,532
0
0
I dislike 3D greatly. I have to pay extra for something that I'll pretty much stop noticing within minutes of the film starting (or, as the case is more likely to be given that timeframe, during the trailers)and the only reason I do notice it is that it lowers picture quality and turns things into a blurry mess.

It sucks.
 

Joccaren

Elite Member
Mar 29, 2011
2,597
3
43
I don't mind so long as:
A) Its implemented well. I don't want to notice something being 3D really ostensibly, it should be something I subconsciously pick up and think looks better than the average movie.
B) I don't have to wear the glasses. Yep, that ruins it out for me. I have to wear a pair of glasses just to see far enough clearly to see what's on the screen anyway, and the movie ones are far less comfortable than the ones I normally wear - and even my own start to feel annoying after a few hours. Beyond that, wearing any glasses makes me feel extremely tired. My eyes just don't like them.

So... yeah. When they develop 3D without glasses and use it mainstream, and use it well, I'll like 3D. I'm not against it as it is now, but I don't exactly care for it either.
 

Gordon_4_v1legacy

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,577
0
0
I think James Cameron is now experiencing what Allan Moore went through with Watchmen. He did something, once, as an experiment for a movie he made and all of a sudden every ************ jumped on the bandwagon to the point where its baffling as shit.

I mean I love Cameron, but he is a technology and small time corporate whore :p Of all your movies to post-convert to 3D and you chose Titanic? No Aliens? No Terminator 2: Judgement Day....actually, Titanic was a good choice. Though I won't lie, if he re-released T2 and/or Aliens in 3D, I'd be fucking THERE!


3D is kind of like anything else, when its used properly and really well such as Avatar, How to Train Your Dragon (man that scene with Hiccup and Toothless testing the rig, awesome!) and oddly enough Transformers 3, it actually does pull you in a bit more.

However, when misused, oh Jesus what a fucking mess. Hi Clash of the Titans, how is your shitty post converted doing?
 

surg3n

New member
May 16, 2011
709
0
0
Our eyes just aren't tuned to have good depth perception these days, so 3D ends up as a gimmock, because it doesn't really improve anything... it's like an optical illusion at the end of the day. If you look into the distance for example, not far, even just say, to the end of the room your in, about 2-4 metres - well all that stuff is too far away for depth perception. We have to be able to see alternate views of an object, basically see around it somewhat, before we can decipher it's shape and consider it 3D. The principle is all there, the practice is all there, but the implimentation is fricken horrible. I think that our brain starts to dismiss the effect as pointless - we are still looking at a flat shape, that is telling our eyes and brain that it's super-cool 3D, but our brain knows better and just adapts - it probably tries to flatten the whole image to make sense of it. Anytime I watch a 3D movie, I forget it's in 3D within 20 minutes.

But, it might be a better effect, better prospect for games. Because in a game, you are in control, it might be useful to have depth perception in a game, but in a movie it's just an effect. When I play a 3D game, my brain doesn't start to dismiss it. I have been playing Half-Life2 in 3D recently, using a little headset (VR920), it's actually a pretty cool way to play it. I lean my chair back, plug in a 360 controller, and play in 3D, with the controller, and it's pretty cool - I mean cool enough for me to want to play through the whole game like that... and I've played through HL2 a lot of times. The headset I use has 2 seperate screens, so is free from the issues that other systems might have, there's no flickering or colour degredation. Visually things aren't perfect, as people have already said, the issues with blurring etc stop it being too realistic, it's more like looking at a 1/10th scale model than a real environment. I'd probably not want to watch a movie like that, I'd rather watch a movie in 2D - but for first person games that support a controller, well 3D really can add to the experience, it just takes a little effort, maybe a little weed or a couple bottles of beer, but it can definitely provide an experience that is enjoyable and worthwhile.

Expensive though... I mean my headset was about £250, a good 3D monitor is about double the price of a standard one, nVidia 3D goggles can cost £100 or more, and that ski-goggle thing that Notch mentioned yesterday is probably even more expensive.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,184
0
0
3d doesn't add a dimension. We have ways to make a 2d image that conveys 3 dimensions without charging extra for it. It doesn't add anything to the experience. 2d movies have a third dimension, without the expensive extra price, the stupid glasses, the headaches, and the idiotic shit jumping out of the screen bullshit. I don't know that 3d is a fad, but it is definitely a gimmick. It adds nothing to the experience, it just lets theaters charge almost twice as much for the same fucking movie, plus annoying bullshit and headaches.
 

0z0wen

New member
Feb 11, 2009
244
0
0
Because my eyes are defective and I can't see the 3d in 3d films... But mreh, I save money for not having to buy a 3d television! :D